Olympus OM wides? (24s and 28s)

GarageBoy · Nov 26, 2012

I'm trying to put together an inexpensive kit to keep in my bag and unfortunately, the Nikon 24s and 28s are a tad too rich for my blood (and I own an F3P and an FA)

So, how are the Olympus wides and how do they compare with the Nikons? (should I just save up for the 28 2.8 AIS ?)

dynachrome · Nov 26, 2012

The 28/3.5 AI is an excellent lens. It doesn't have the CRC feature of the 28/2.8 AIS. What you save by getting the 28/3.5 AI will leave you enough to get a 55/3.5 Macro and then some. The CRC feature is nice and I have it on other 28s like the 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon and the 28/2 Canon FD SSC. In the close range any of the 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors will be better than these 28mm lenses with CRC.

E. von Hoegh · Nov 26, 2012

I had the older single-coated OM 24/2.8. It was pretty good, the main problem was I didn't know how to use extreme wides.

Ulrich Drolshagen · Nov 26, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
I had the older single-coated OM 24/2.8. It was pretty good, the main problem was I didn't know how to use extreme wides.

+1. Me too not knowing how to use it properly.

hdeyong · Nov 26, 2012

Love 'em

I have the 24, f2.8, the 50, f1.8 and the 100, f2.8, and I love all of them. Excellent optical quality, light and compact, and even all use the same 49mm filters.

Christiaan Phleger · Nov 26, 2012

Yeah, don't knock those "lesser" Nikkors, the 3.5 is pretty good especially in B&W. I believe there was an optical change about the switch to Ais offering closer focus but they are all pretty good, and can be found with little effort for little money. The couple of 28mm Ai 2.8 non-CRC I've had were decent, great color and actually pretty good bokeh, but compared to the couple of 28mm f/2 I have they were not AS good. Good, not GREAT, which the f/2 is, and since I've got way too many 28's they had to go, sold one to my friend in MINT condition for 99.00 and he was very happy as was I. So, don't rule out the Nikkor especially since you have two good bodies.

Chris Nielsen · Nov 26, 2012

All I know about the 28 2.8 Zuiko is that I really love mine, the first roll of film I got back blew me away. Testing my new 24 2.8 now, hope it does the same!

darinwc · Nov 26, 2012

What you gain in cost of the lens you will loose in cost of another body (and more lenses for it).

-The Nikkor AIS 28mm f2.8 has a bit of a cult status because of its CRC and excellent reviews. But even then, I have seen it for relatively decent prices if you look hard enough.
As an alternative, the Nikkor 24mm f2.8, AI 28mm f2.8, or 28mm f3.5 go for much less, and are excellent lenses just without the CRC.

The Olympus OM lenses you reference do not have CRC either, so why not just stick to your one system?

And lastly, other highly recommended lenses are the Kiron (aka Vivitar serial numbers 22*) 28mm and Sigma 28mm lenses. The sigma is a real bargain.

E. von Hoegh · Nov 26, 2012

The only reason to go with lenses having CRC - Close Range Correction - is if you make wide-angle closeups, about the last thing I'd choose a WA lens for.

GarageBoy · Nov 26, 2012

I actually like using wides close up to exaggerate size differences. I know the Olympus 24 2.8 and the 28 2.8 does not employ CRC/Floating Elements, but are they sharper than their Nikon counterparts?
The Nikon FA/FE/FM series are the perfect size for me, but I've never tried an Olympus. Plus the black OM bodies look so sleek.

Or am I just thinking about the grass being greener on the other side?

E. von Hoegh · Nov 26, 2012

GarageBoy said:
I actually like using wides close up to exaggerate size differences. I know the Olympus 24 2.8 and the 28 2.8 does not employ CRC/Floating Elements, but are they sharper than their Nikon counterparts?
The Nikon FA/FE/FM series are the perfect size for me, but I've never tried an Olympus. Plus the black OM bodies look so sleek.

Or am I just thinking about the grass being greener on the other side?

Bingo. Personally I'd stick with the Nikkors, and I have two Oly bodies, a 3 and a 4. I've never used them.

mopar_guy · Nov 26, 2012

The OM Zuiko 21mm f2.0, 24mm f2.0 and 28mm f2.0 lenses all include floating element design to correct for close focus aberrations. The down side is that they are more expensive.

Ulrich Drolshagen · Nov 26, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
Bingo. Personally I'd stick with the Nikkors, and I have two Oly bodies, a 3 and a 4. I've never used them.

May be you should have

E. von Hoegh · Nov 26, 2012

Ulrich Drolshagen said:
May be you should have

I had and used Olympi ( a 2 and a 4) years ago; the equipment I have now was my late father's.

Christiaan Phleger · Nov 26, 2012

All the Nikkor 24's 2.8 and 2 have always had CRC, even the old crusty ones. Great lens.

MFstooges · Nov 26, 2012

Close focusing with WA is a 'must have' for me :alien:

E. von Hoegh · Nov 27, 2012

RidingWaves said:
All the Nikkor 24's 2.8 and 2 have always had CRC, even the old crusty ones. Great lens.

This is true. http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/wides/24mm.htm

thuggins · Nov 27, 2012

All three Zuiko 28's are very good lenses. As I recall, there is some slight variation in tonal rendering, but they all give excellent results. The f3.5 is often poo-pooed as a "slow lens" and as such is very inexpensive, but is a good performer with a respected reputation among Zuikoholics. And it is tiny, even by Olympus standards. I have taken landscape shots with a flower within inches of the lens with everything in focus to infinity, and gotten great results. Even the f2 is small by comparison to other manufacturers. The three 28's and the 24f2.8 all fit into two regular pockets in my lens case.

Like any Zuiko, the 24f2.8 is a very good lens. It got some use in a trip to Cambridge where restricted space inside buildings and along higgledy-piggledy streets made framing very difficult. Personally I find 24mm difficult to use. Large, close objects end up being distorted and distant objects just get lost; it is the high end of the "gimmicky" wides where you trying for an effect and not a realist photo.

wblynch · Nov 27, 2012

The 24mm/2.8 OM Zuiko is an excellent lens. It is razor sharp and has great contrast and color rendition. I have read contemporary comparisons of this lens to its big name rivals and it topped them all.

The 28mm/2.8 is nearly its equal with less perspective concern.

And the 28mm/3.5 is probably the best travel/street lens. In daylight set it to f/5.6 or 8 and pre-focus for 4-30ft. Makes an excellent point-and-shoot. Shoot from the hip and never miss a shot.

For a great street setup, an OM-10 with auto exposure and a 28/35. can't be beat. If you drop it, lose it, or it gets stolen you won't be out a whole lot of $$$ (but you will cry over the lost shots still inside)

MattKing · Nov 27, 2012

The combination of a 35mm (f/2.0 in my case) and a 24mm (f/2.8 in my case) is wonderfully flexible - although I add an 85mm f/2.0 for completeness.

lxdude · Nov 28, 2012

Consider also Pentax. The aperture and focusing rings turn the same direction as Nikon. I use both makes and consider that valuable.

The 28/3.5 SMC-Pentax is a real gem (SMC Pentax were sometimes called K-series, though that is not official).
The later 28/3.5 SMC Pentax-M is well regarded, enough that the 3.5 M-series costs more than the 2.8 M-series.

The SMC Pentax 24mm's, both 2.8 and 3.5, are highly regarded.

The SMC Pentax A series 24/2.8-A and 28/2.8-A are fine lenses, though more expensive due to being able to be used for shutter-priority AE and having aperture adjustable on camera.

dynachrome · Nov 28, 2012

I have a 28/2.8 M lens and find it quite good. There was a 28/3.5 SMC Pentax which was supposed to be the same optically as the earlier screw mount 28/3.5. It often sells for more than the later 28/2.8 M. If I am not mistaken the 28/3.5 M was sold only in non-U.S. markets. Minolta sold a 28/3.5 MD lens in non-U.S. markets. In the U.S. you could get a 28/2 or a 28/2.8. The differece in price between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 was not significant enough in the U.S. for both models to be offered.

baachitraka · Nov 29, 2012

28mm f/3.5 is one little lens that does wonders and so is 85mm f/2.0

lxdude · Nov 29, 2012

dynachrome said:
If I am not mistaken the 28/3.5 M was sold only in non-U.S. markets. In the U.S. you could get a 28/2 or a 28/2.8. The differece in price between the f/2.8 and the f/3.5 was not significant enough in the U.S. for both models to be offered.

That could be. I did have one and am sorry I sold it. I'm going to pick up another or an SMC Pentax version one of these days to replace it. I have the 28/2.8-M now, and it renders nicely, but it just isn't as sharp as the 28/3.5-M to my eye, and that seems to be a pretty typical impression of it, from what I gather. I still have my old EBC Fujinon 28/3.5 I bought new 35 years ago, and that's nice and sharp, a very nice lens, but I lose auto diaphragm with it adapted.

Olympus OM wides? (24s and 28s)

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency